[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17423-17429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1338, PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1388 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1338) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of 
     discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall 
     be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 1338 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration 
of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 1388.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1388 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, under a 
structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled 
by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order six 
amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report, and the 
rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, our great Nation recently celebrated the 160th 
anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New 
York. This groundbreaking convention was dedicated to the key principle 
in the Declaration of Independence that we are all created equal. Women 
have had a

[[Page 17424]]

hard time to recognize that because it took more than 70 years for us 
to pass legislation giving women the right to vote.
  But in the years since Seneca Falls, generations of courageous women 
have made great strides towards equality. From securing a woman's right 
to vote in 1920 to serving our country in World War II, American women 
have come a long way. In this Congress alone, we have much to 
celebrate. Speaker Pelosi is the first woman to lead this esteemed 
body. And Senator Clinton made ``18 million cracks'' in the Nation's 
highest glass ceiling as the first woman to run a formidable 
Presidential campaign.
  Yet as we celebrate these important milestones and look back on all 
we have achieved since 1848, we know full well that our journey toward 
gender equality is not complete. Despite the strong leadership of 
several generations of women, we are still struggling to achieve 
equality in the workplace. Among the most distressing disparities is 
the significant gap in pay between American men and women as they work 
side by side doing the very same work.
  Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago President John F. Kennedy signed into law 
the Equal Pay Act to address the unconscionable practice of paying 
women less for the same job. That was 45 years ago and we still 
struggle. At that time when this bill was signed, women were earning 59 
cents for each dollar earned by a man in a comparable job. While the 
wage gap has narrowed, today the working women in America still earn 
only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In other words, let me 
put it this way, 18 cents more has been achieved in the past 45 years.
  According to the Department of Labor, which maintains data on over 
300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every category. 
This is so important, I'm going to say it again. The Department of 
Labor says in 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and 
every 1 of them. Even in what they call the female-dominated industries 
where women comprise 70 percent of that labor force, women earn 20 
percent less than their male coworkers.
  Experts estimate that the average woman worker will lose anywhere 
from $200,000 to $2 million over her lifetime as a result of the wage 
gap. Over time women earn significantly less than men, and lower wages 
translate into less income that counts in calculating pensions and in 
some cases Social Security benefits. Closing the wage gap will have a 
long-term impact on the women's economic security, especially in 
retirement.
  To all the cynics who dismiss equal pay as just another women's 
issue, I want to point out that the wage gap not only hurts women, it 
hurts families. It hurts children being raised by single moms who have 
to work two jobs to make ends meet when one might suffice were she to 
be paid equally with her male coworkers. It hurts families with two 
working parents who are struggling as one partner makes 20 percent less 
than her male colleagues. Currently, single women who are heads of 
households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers. 
Again, currently single women who are heads of households are twice as 
likely to be in poverty as single fathers. That is a fact that we must 
face here and remedy. And we know that pay equity for women is closely 
linked to eradicating poverty. For families who live below or near the 
poverty line, the equal pay for women will make a significant 
difference to the well-being of American families. And after all, Mr. 
Speaker, isn't that why we are here?
  Despite these statistics and shocking data that indicates that men 
make over 20 percent more than their female colleagues on average, the 
Supreme Court dealt a blow to working women last year when it decided 
Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that case, former Goodyear employee Lilly 
Ledbetter, an employee of 28 years, sued the company after she left the 
company after discovering she had been paid significantly less than 
male employees doing the same job during her nearly two decades of 
employment. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 
was in effect at that time. Though Ms. Ledbetter was clearly treated as 
a second-class employee, although she got wonderful ratings and 
compliments on her job, the Supreme Court let Goodyear off the hook on 
what I think is a misrepresentation of the law.
  The Supreme Court ruled that in order to enforce her right to be paid 
fairly, Ms. Ledbetter would have had to file a wage discrimination 
complaint within 180 days of when the discrimination began. Now, 
imagine that. You're new on the job. You're happy to be there. You're 
learning your job. And you have no idea what other people are paid or 
whether you're being discriminated against. That shows you the grave 
mistake made by the Supreme Court. But since pay practices typically 
take place in secret, it would be impossible for a woman to discover 
discrimination within a 180-day window that she has to file a claim.
  Justice Ginsberg, the only woman serving on the Court, wisely noted 
that the Ledbetter decision essentially gutted legislative protections 
against discriminatory pay practices. Again, that would have been the 
law of 1963. In its Ledbetter ruling, the Supreme Court has all but 
endorsed gender discrimination in employment by robbing women of a 
legal remedy to enforce equality. One certainly understands that we 
need more women on the United States Supreme Court.
  To overcome these efforts to nullify the Equal Pay Act, we must 
redouble our efforts to insist that Lilly Ledbetter and the countless 
hardworking women like her in America are compensated fairly.
  Earlier this month I was proud to join Speaker Pelosi, Senator 
Clinton, Rosa DeLauro, Lilly Ledbetter, and many of my colleagues at an 
event in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

                              {time}  1045

  This legislation we are debating today prohibits employers from 
retaliating against employees who discuss salary information with 
coworkers. Can you imagine that in most companies that is against the 
rules? It puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing 
with other forms of wage discrimination by allowing women to sue for 
compensatory and punitive damages, and it will help prevent future pay 
disparities by requiring the Department of Labor to expand outreach to 
employers and to continue to collect and share wage information based 
on gender.
  Finally, it creates a grant program to strengthen the negotiation 
skills of girls and women to help our daughters fight for the 
compensation to which they are entitled.
  Today, we have an historic opportunity to stand up for the women of 
America and say, You deserve equal pay for equal work. Today, we have 
an opportunity and an obligation to stand up for our mothers and 
daughters and sisters and nieces who are making less than their male 
counterparts for the exact same work.
  Today, even though it is late in the day, we have an opportunity to 
secure the promise of America so that tomorrow our daughters and sons 
and granddaughters and grandsons will all have equal opportunity to 
achieve the American dream. Until we do, we will never reach the gender 
equality that women and men present at the 1848 Women's Rights 
Convention aspired to achieve.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the working women in our 
lives and to the generations of hardworking women who came before us to 
support this legislation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will 
soon become law, and I implore my colleagues to vote for it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend, the 
distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time. I wish her the 
best today, and all those who participate in this debate.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, no worker should ever be subjected to discrimination 
because of gender or any other reason. Anyone who commits such 
discrimination must be stopped and punished for reprehensible behavior. 
Discrimination has no place in the workplace.

[[Page 17425]]

  For that reason, Congress has passed two major laws that prohibit an 
employer from paying an employee a different wages or otherwise 
discriminating in any term or condition of employment on the basis of 
gender. These prohibitions against discrimination are provided in both 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
  The underlying legislation, H.R. 1338, seeks to further prevent 
gender discrimination in the workplace. The legislation has raised some 
concerns on how it seeks to achieve the goal. For example, in a letter 
from the Secretary of Labor, Ms. Chao, to Chairman Miller, the 
Secretary expressed concerns that the legislation would allow for 
unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, and she also expressed 
opposition to changes in the establishment requirement. Under current 
law, employees whose pay is being compared, must work in the same 
establishment. In the underlying legislation, that would change to mean 
workplaces in the same county, and it also allows that change to be 
defined even more broadly. But, without doubt,
  Mr. Speaker, later this week, the House of Representatives is 
scheduled to take a 5-week recess so Members can return to their 
districts but, unfortunately, without having considered comprehensive 
energy legislation. A few days ago, I held a town hall meeting with 
constituents. One of them asked very clearly and emphatically that we 
stay in session until we consider comprehensive energy legislation that 
would reduce the price of gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign 
energy sources. That was no isolated statement. Each and every time I 
speak to my constituents these days, I hear their frustrations and 
concerns with one specific issue, one specific problem facing the 
Nation, the unacceptably high price of gasoline.
  I understand my constituents' frustration with the majority's 
unwillingness to act. They are upset and they want us to take action. I 
agree with my constituents that we should not leave until we have 
provided them, the Nation, comprehensive energy legislation.
  I explained in that meeting that the minority each and every week has 
attempted and continues to attempt to bring a number of energy 
proposals before the House of Representatives for debate. However, the 
majority consistently blocks all attempts at a comprehensive energy 
debate.
  The majority's constant attempts to block energy debates was even 
mentioned in a publication that covers Capitol Hill, The Hill. That 
newspaper, in an article a few days ago, stated, ``Democrats have 
consistently put energy bills on the suspension calendar to block 
Republicans from offering any alternatives at all. They have also shut 
down the appropriations process for the year to avoid possibly losing 
votes on energy bills.'' That sort of obstruction is unacceptable, 
especially when the American people are calling for Congress to act.
  The majority's obstruction, Mr. Speaker, is not limited to energy 
legislation. It extends to virtually every bill, including the 
underlying legislation.
  Yesterday, the majority on the Rules Committee passed a restrictive 
rule that blocked an open and fair debate. A total of 15 amendments 
were submitted to the Rules Committee, four majority amendments and 11 
minority amendments. Continuing its obstruction of an open debate, the 
majority on the Rules Committee made every majority amendment in order, 
while allowing only two minority amendments. The majority got 100 
percent of their amendments made in order, while the minority got 18 
percent of their amendments made in order.
  This isn't the first time that has happened. Just last week, the 
majority on the Rules Committee did the same thing with regard to a 
bill, allowing every majority amendment while blocking an overwhelming 
number of minority amendments.
  So what happened to the majority's promise of an open and fair 
debate? I think it was well described by a recent article in another 
publication that covers Capitol Hill, called Politico, in an article on 
the Speaker. It read, ``After promising fairness and open debate, she 
has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar 
any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.''
  I think it's unnecessary and unfair, Mr. Speaker. I think it's 
unfortunate and sad.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the Rules Committee and also from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the chairwoman for yielding time and thank her 
for her career of championing nondiscrimination and equal rights for 
women in the workplace.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in strong support of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act and this rule and take another important step 
towards equality for all Americans. During the 230 plus-year history of 
our great Nation, the march towards equality under the law for all of 
our citizens has sometimes been slow, but it has been steady.
  Over time, the Congress has outlawed discrimination in the workplace 
based upon a person's race, gender, age, national origin, religion, and 
disability, because when it comes to employment and hiring and firing 
and promotion and compensation, decisions are rightly based upon a 
person's qualifications and job performance.
  These are the values we share as Americans; that if someone works 
hard and plays by the rules, and if they share the same job, duties and 
responsibilities, no matter that they are a man or a woman, they will 
receive equal pay for equal work. Unfortunately, that does not always 
happen, and sometimes women are paid less just because they are women 
and the boss can get away with it. The wage disparity over time can 
cost women over $400,000 to $2 million in lost wages.
  This Paycheck Fairness Act addresses that disparity by providing more 
effective remedies for gender-based wage discrimination and ensuring 
that if a case goes all the way to a jury, that the arbitrary and 
outdated caps on damages will be addressed.
  Thank you to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. She introduced this 
legislation 11 years ago, but she never gave up. Congresswoman DeLauro, 
we are not going to give up just because the President has threatened 
to veto the measure. I'd also like to thank Speaker  Nancy Pelosi, 
Chairman George Miller, and Chairwoman Louise Slaughter for their 
leadership and commitment to equality under the law for all Americans.
  Passing this historic Paycheck Fairness Act will bring our Nation 
closer to our promise of equality for all Americans. It is a hopeful 
day for working women and families, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on their 
behalf.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a 
member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee 
for her leadership on this issue and for the time. I also want to thank 
Speaker  Nancy Pelosi and Representative Rosa DeLauro for their 
commitment and dedication to bringing this forward over hurdle past 
hurdle past challenge past challenge. Thank you so much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1388 and the 
underlying legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Mr. Speaker, 
fairness is something we strive for in all aspects of our lives. From 
an early age, we try to instill in our children the importance of 
fairness, fair play, and equality. But, sadly, while we preach 
fairness, on average, women today earn a deplorable 77 percent of what 
men earn and, unfortunately, the wage gap in my home State of Ohio is 
even more substantial than the national average.
  According to the National Women's Law Center, Ohio ranked 30th in the 
ratio of women's earnings to men's earnings. The Center gave Ohio, 
along with 46 other States, a failing grade. That is simply 
unacceptable.
  I have read and heard the stories of wage discrimination. We have all 
heard the story of Lilly Ledbetter, the worker who was a victim of 
systematic pay

[[Page 17426]]

discrimination for 19 years. These are the stories of women who have 
dedicated decades upon decades of their lives to their employers, only 
to find out that they are compensated at a fraction of the rate of 
their male counterparts.
  With every paycheck these women deposit, they and their families are 
being held back, their earning potential limited by a factor over which 
they have no control, their gender, and a factor that has no affect on 
their job performance.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a letter my office received 
on this issue from a college student at the University of Akron. She 
wrote, ``Ever since I started working, I have become more knowledgeable 
of the fact that in most cases men receive a higher pay than women do 
for the same amount of work.''
  We need to send a message to the young women in our country that the 
status quo is not acceptable. We need to respond to the concerns of our 
future leaders and show them that we are willing to stand up for their 
right to earn equal pay for equal work.
  This young woman went on to say, ``Equal pay for equal work is a 
simple matter of justice for women.'' I couldn't say it better myself. 
The Paycheck Fairness Act will update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act. 
This bill will close numerous loopholes in the 45-year old law that has 
allowed employers to avoid liability for discriminatory practices.

                              {time}  1100

  The American people expect their government to stand up for fairness 
and justice. The Paycheck Fairness Act is not only about changing the 
way we treat our working women. It is about paying rent, putting food 
on the table, and paying for college tuition. We must return to the 
founding principles of our Nation and what has moved us forward in 
difficult times. Fairness has been at the heart of all that makes 
America strong, and this Congress cannot turn away from that.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and this incredibly 
important bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
author of this legislation, an outstanding Member, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I 
commend Speaker Pelosi, the majority leader, Chairman Miller, and as 
well Chairman Slaughter and the entire Rules Committee, for bringing 
this important legislation to the floor.
  With this resolution, we take up an effort that began more than 150 
years ago when visionary women came together to stand up for women's 
rights, to better the status of women in our society. In this 
tradition, more than 11 years ago I first introduced the legislation 
that we consider this morning, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and I cannot 
help but think of all the Aprils we have commemorated Equal Pay Day 
without legislative movement. But, today, the legislative inertia we 
have experienced for years comes to an end. I could not be more proud.
  We have made some important strides during the last quarter century. 
Women now make up a majority of the workforce, own 6 million small 
businesses and are more likely to hold an advanced degree than men. But 
for all of our successes, women continue to be stymied when it comes to 
equal pay.
  The wage gap is real. Over the course of her lifetime, a female high 
school graduate will make $700,000 less than the young man she 
graduates with. Compared to a man, a female college graduate stands to 
lose up to $2 million in the course of her career. This is true across 
the board. As the National Committee on Pay Equity tells us, the wage 
gap today finds that women earn about 77 cents for every dollar men 
earn.
  By now, we are all familiar with the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the 
woman whose pay discrimination case against Goodyear Tire and Rubber 
Company went all the way to the Supreme Court. In her testimony before 
the Education and Labor Committee, she said, ``Goodyear acknowledged 
that it was paying me a lot less than the men doing the same work, so I 
was actually earning 20 percent less than the lowest paid male 
supervisor in the same position. What happened to me is not only an 
insult to my dignity, but it had real consequences for my ability to 
care for my family. Every paycheck I received, I got less than what I 
was entitled under the law.''
  Clearly, the marketplace alone and even our court system will not 
correct this injustice. We need a legislative solution. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act would make modest, commonsense reforms to the Equal Pay 
Act by closing numerous loopholes in the 45-year-old law that has 
enabled some employers to evade liability.
  It would clarify the ``any factor other than sex'' defense so that an 
employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same 
job must show that the disparity is not sex-based; that it is job 
related and necessary for the businesses. It would prohibit employers 
from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary 
information with their coworkers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Of course, employees such as human resources personnel 
who have access to payroll information would not be protected if they 
disclosed workers' salaries of other workers. And it would strengthen 
the remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages.
  Pay equity is not just another benefit to be bargained for or 
bargained away. It is part of something bigger, part of a promise in 
which we all have a role, giving women the power to gain economic 
security for themselves and for their families. I urge a yes vote on 
this resolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to 
reserve.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for her 
leadership in the Rules Committee bringing this important bill to the 
floor, I thank my colleague Rosa DeLauro for her stunning work in 
bringing this legislation into print, and I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Last week, I was fortunate enough to participate in a rally with 
several of my female colleagues in the House and Senate and our hero, 
Lilly Ledbetter. Lilly's personal experience is a testament to the 
Equal Pay Act, which guarantees equal pay for equal work, needs some 
work of its own. H.R. 1338 closes some existing loopholes so that 
employees can fight for their deserved wages without fear of 
retaliation.
  As we discussed these issues at the event last week, I was inspired 
and comforted to see such a crowd of young women, many of whom are 
recent college graduates just starting out in their careers. They can 
be sure that with the passage this legislation, they may not face the 
same barriers that women from their mothers' and grandmothers' 
generations faced.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation. 
Help us secure a better economic future for our daughters, our 
granddaughters and their friends.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, in 1963 President Kennedy signed 
the Equal Pay Act in order to address the wage gap, and yet 45 years 
later, more than my entire life, women still make on average only 77 
cents for every dollar earned by men for the same work.
  Last summer I had the opportunity to meet Lilly Ledbetter during a 
House Judiciary Committee hearing. When she worked for Goodyear, she 
had no proof of pay discrimination until someone anonymously slipped 
payroll

[[Page 17427]]

records into her mailbox. When Lilly took her case to court, the 
Supreme Court failed her, telling her she should have known all along 
she was being discriminated against, even though Goodyear's payroll 
records were secret. This bill lifts the cloak of secrecy that allows 
these kinds of unfair pay practices to fester.
  I urge my colleagues today to support eliminating discriminatory pay 
practices. Let's create an America where our next generation of 
daughters get paid for their worth equally, regardless of their gender.
  My congratulations to Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Miller for 
their leadership on this issue. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bold 
step forward in righting the wrong of pay discrimination.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairwoman of the Rules Committee. Her presence on the Rules Committee 
is evidence of the struggle, but yet the progress, and the reason why 
we stand here today. I thank the long-standing, committed Member of 
Congress, Rosa DeLauro, and I certainly thank the leadership for 
recognizing as we approach a very important time of year, August 26th, 
2008, that will reflect on the movement of women arguing not for 
special preferences, but simply equality, that this Paycheck equality 
legislation must pass today!
  So the Paycheck Fairness Act is crucial to that equality, because it 
clarifies the ``any factor other than sex'' defense that kept Ms. 
Ledbetter from knowing and being able to petition for more money, is 
clarified to show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job-related, 
and necessary for the business. Do people realize that Ms. Ledbetter 
worked and toiled for years without understanding that she was not 
being paid a fair day's wage for a fair day's work? How tragic in 
America.
  May I ask the Members to support this legislation, because it is 
real, it is needed now!
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for 
this important legislation as well as the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member of the Committee on Education & Labor for working together to 
see that gender equity is not just something we talk about, but 
something we are actually willing to put into action.
  This legislation is intended to combat the wage gap that still exists 
today between men and women in the workplace. It is an important step 
in addressing the persistent wage gap between women and men by updating 
the Equal Pay Act--passed more than 45 years ago.
  The reality is the Equal Pay Act needs to be strengthened and 
improved for all women to combat wage discrimination and eliminate 
loopholes in the current law. The Paycheck Fairness Act creates 
meaningful penalties against employers whose pay practices are proven 
to have been discriminatory. The bill will also protect workers from 
retaliation by their employers when employees discuss their pay with 
coworkers.
  Earlier this year the House passed H.R. 2831, legislation reversing 
last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and 
Rubber Co., in which the court ruled, 5-4, that workers filing suit for 
pay discrimination must do so within 180 days of the actual decision to 
discriminate against them.
  The Paycheck Protection Act is also needed to stop discriminatory pay 
practices by employers against our mothers, wives, daughters, and 
granddaughters that do the same job as their male counterparts.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act, which currently has 230 cosponsors, will 
strengthen the Equal Pay Act--passed more than 45 years ago--and as a 
result improve the law's effectiveness, and help to address the 
persistent wage gap between men and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act 
would:
  Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in pay by requiring 
employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women doing the 
same work are truly a result of factors other than sex.
  Deter wage discrimination by strengthening penalties for equal pay 
violations, and by prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire 
about employers' wage practices or disclose their own wages. The bill's 
measured approach would ensure that women can obtain the same remedies 
as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national 
origin. AAUW would strongly oppose any efforts to add such caps.
  Provide women with a fair option to proceed in a class action suit 
under the Equal Pay Act, and allow women to receive punitive and 
compensatory damages for pay discrimination.
  Clarify the establishment provision under the Equal Pay Act, which 
would allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to determine 
fair wages.
  Authorize additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes.
  It will aid in the efficient and effective enforcement of federal 
anti-pay discrimination laws by requiring the EEOC to develop 
regulations directing employers to collect wage data, reported by the 
race, sex, and national origin of employees.
  It will require the U.S. Department of Labor to reinstate activities 
that promote equal pay, such as: Directing educational programs, 
providing technical assistance to employers, recognizing businesses 
that address the wage gap, collecting wage-related data, and conducting 
and promoting research about pay disparities between men and women.
  More importantly for our young ladies going into the workforce, it 
will establish a competitive grant program to develop salary 
negotiation training for women and girls.
  As a Member of the Women's Caucus and former President of the Black 
Women Lawyers Association of Houston, I have been fighting for pay 
equity for American women since before I arrived here as a 
Representative in 1995, and I believe that equal pay for equal work is 
a simple matter of justice. Wage disparities are not simply a result of 
women's education levels or life choices.
  In fact, the pay gap between college educated men and women appears 
first after college--even when women are working full-time in the same 
fields with the same major as men--and continues to widen during the 
first ten years in the workforce.
  Further, this persistent wage gap not only impacts the economic 
security of women and their families today, it also directly affects 
women's retirement security tomorrow. Now is the time for additional 
proactive measures to effectively address wage discrimination and 
eliminate loopholes that have hindered the Equal Pay Act's 
effectiveness.
  I urge my colleagues, both men and women, to support equality in 
rights and pay for all Americans by supporting the Paycheck Fairness 
Act, and vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I salute you for the work you 
have been doing on this issue and the issue of equality for women and 
the issue of equality for all people, and I salute Chairman Miller for 
his work in Congress, for being on the verge of passing this 
legislation.
  You know, it is truly shocking that we have a situation where there 
is a difference in pay depending on whether you are a man or a woman. 
You have heard the statistics. But what is even more shocking is we had 
a Supreme Court that probably when history is written, its most 
shameful decision will be denying relief to a woman on the basis of a 
claim that she did not know existed. The Supreme Court said that when 
this person had been discriminated against for years and didn't know 
about it, it was the burden on her to know about something that was 
actively being hidden from her by her employer. It is a shocking 
decision by our United States Supreme Court, and this Congress has an 
opportunity to overturn that.
  H.R. 1338 is going to address that loophole. The wage gap that 
strikes women immediately upon entering the workforce is bad, and it 
gets worse. Ten years after college, women earn only 69 percent of what 
men do. The wage gap adds up quickly over the course of a career, 
$400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime. This discrimination can cost 
women security and retirement. Older women are less likely than older 
men to receive pension income, and when they do, they only receive 
about one-half the benefits that men

[[Page 17428]]

do. It can cost a woman half their pension that would be comparable for 
a man.
  Because of the wage gap, more women than men experience poverty or 
teeter on the edge of poverty. Seventy percent of older Americans 
living in poverty are women, and that is directly as a result of wage 
discrimination.
  The hope of the American Dream is that people who work hard will get 
ahead regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, regardless 
of their national origin, and it is the challenge of this Congress 
being met by the promise of this legislation to make that American 
dream of equality of opportunity available to all people and to 
absolutely prohibit discrimination in wages solely on the basis of the 
gender of the person doing the work.
  H.R. 1338 has 230 cosponsors. It is also supported by major women's 
and workers' rights advocates, including the National Committee on Pay 
Equity and the National Women's Law Center. I ask for a ``yes'' vote 
and unanimous passage by the House of Representatives.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the 
distinguished Chair how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to inform my colleague that I have no 
further speakers and would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I would like 
to thank all of our distinguished colleagues who have come to the floor 
today to discuss this issue, the important issue of gender 
discrimination in the workplace and the fact that as a society we have 
to continue fighting discrimination.
  The issue that I am constantly, constantly being contacted by my 
constituents about is an issue that affects our entire society, and 
that is the unacceptable price of gasoline, the continuous rise of 
energy prices. There is no subject, Mr. Speaker, again, that my 
constituents contact me and urge me to act on more than that issue, 
that subject, that crisis really. It affects men and women. It affects 
our entire society. The price of gasoline has become simply 
unacceptable.
  For weeks, we in the minority have pushed efforts to debate 
comprehensive energy legislation, but the majority consistently blocks 
our efforts to address one of the clearly most important issues facing 
the United States today.

                              {time}  1115

  It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering the 
skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So today, I urge my colleagues to vote 
with me to defeat the previous question so the House can finally 
consider real solutions to the rising energy costs facing Americans 
throughout our society each day.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule 
to allow for consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, which 
provides a comprehensive approach that will increase the supply of 
American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote 
renewable and alternative energy technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. By voting no on the previous 
question, Members can take a stand against these unacceptable prices of 
gasoline, and we can finally begin a comprehensive energy debate. And I 
remind all of our colleagues that voting no on the previous question 
will not preclude consideration of the legislation, the underlying 
legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act. And I remind them that the 
unacceptable price of gasoline affects all of our constituents, men and 
women. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to explain to the 
listening persons and those in our galley why we are here today.
  The other side has consistently talked as though this is an energy 
bill, but let me remind all of us that this is an opportunity for the 
United States to bring into compliance with pay scales, in compliance 
with the law of 1963 for women who, as my colleague Ms. DeLauro pointed 
out, comprise 40 percent of the workforce.
  This legislation cures a wrong that has cost many women between 
$400,000 and $2 million, not only in the lost wages they should have 
been paid had there been equality, but also indirectly their pensions 
and their Social Security in many cases. This hurts families, Mr. 
Speaker. This hurts single parents who are trying, oftentimes doing two 
jobs, to try to keep food on the table.
  All the statistics show, which absolutely astonished me, that more 
women who are single heads of household than men are under the poverty 
line. One reason for that is they did not get equal pay. We have to 
right this wrong. We have to do it today. I can't express enough my 
gratitude for Congresswoman DeLauro and the Women's Caucus for all the 
work that they have done. But it has been since 1963, 45 years ago, 
when the law was passed demanding equal pay. And here we are in 2008, 
Mr. Speaker, and we still don't have it.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes 
on the rule, and, by all means, yes on the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1388 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down 
     energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production, 
     encouraging the development of alternative and renewable 
     energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order 
     against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority 
     leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if 
     offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall 
     be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 
     40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an Opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the ``previous question 
     is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote 
     on adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee

[[Page 17429]]

     described the rule using information from Congressional 
     Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the 
     previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to 
     the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor 
     Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a 
     germane amendment to the pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________